Google starts charm offensive, but not everyone’s on board

As the search giant works to keep regulators at bay by increasing its …

With great power comes great scrutiny. That line may not have appeared in any movies, but it's the lesson that Google executives seem to be taking home from the extensive attention it's receiving from governments and private interests, all of which are concerned that its dominance of the search and advertising business may allow it to control related markets. In recent days, the company has been doing its best to play nice, consulting with regulators, settling with litigants, and explaining to anyone who will listen that it's really just a giant enabler of good things.

The latest instance of this approach came in the form of a modification of Google's settlement of a lawsuit brought by book publishers and copyright holders, a deal that has raised concerns by everyone from librarians to the Department of Justice. Now, Google has negotiated changes to an agreement it has with one library, that of the University of Michigan, that's participating in its book digitization project. That document is written in high legalese, and assumes you've got a copy of the initial document that's being amended; fortunately, the Michigan Libraries have seen fit to summarize it.

In short, the modifications will control what happens to digitized content from the University of Michigan after the settlement goes into effect (assuming it does). In short, it gives Michigan the right to the digitized version of any book in its collection, even if Google wound up scanning a copy held by a different library. Michigan will have the right to offer these digital versions through the equivalent of interlibrary loans, and the general public will apparently be allowed to purchase access to its collection, even if they have no association with the university—although this may just be through the online book retailing that will be part of Google's service.

More generally, UM will be given a discount on access to the complete Google collection based on the amount of material Google has obtained from its libraries. The more works that are scanned at Michigan, the cheaper it will get, and the library's statement on the matter suggests that enough work has already been done that it will have its access for free. These same terms will also be applied to any other participating library, and all of them will gain the right to challenge the fees charged for access at any time, forcing Google and the book registry it will form as part of the settlement to engage in arbitration over the fees.

Overall, the changes are viewed as positive, but limited to the small subset of libraries that are already working with Google. Corey Williams of the American Library Association's Office of Government Relations, told Ars, "It's a step, and it's good for Michigan, but it does not provide a mechanism for all libraries to request a review of pricing."

The same general approach—minimize objections by negotiations—is being used by Google's Street View team, which has faced opposition in places like Japan and the UK. In a post on its European Policy blog, Google says that its now working with the EU's Article 29 Working Party, which is tasked with data protection. The goal is to try to work out any limitations for Street View imaging in advance, so the company doesn't face the sort of ad hoc resistance it has in a number of locations. More generally, it will ensure that the information obtained complies with the privacy laws, both EU-wide and within its member states.

More generally, the company has been trying to get the message out that it simply provides an open platform upon which others can innovate, and that any other company could fill that role, so competition (in its words) "is just one click away." That message appeared on its public policy blog early this month and, according to the Financial Times, has been reiterated by its CEO Eric Schmidt at a Google Zeitgeist event being held in the UK. According to Schmidt, the company's actions have been consumer-focused, and anything but anticompetitive. Still, the charm offensive has its limits. Schmidt also offered a warning about what might happen if the markets Google competes in became overregulated; "creative innovation is slowed," when that happens, in his view.

But those warnings were positively sunny compared to the words coming down from Google cofounder Larry Page. Page apparently told the Financial Times that neither the public nor regulators actually know what the real issues are. If those parties really knew what was going on, he suggested, they'd never demand that search logs have an expiration date, since doing so could be deadly. "The less of these logs we retain the more likely we are to all die from an epidemic," Page is quoted as saying, since deleting the logs would interfere with datamining done for flu trends.

Apparently, not everyone's received the memo about playing nice with regulators and other interested parties.